Consistency is a wonderful thing and is at the core of logic. Science tries to represent knowledge through observation and obviously experimentation but it doesn’t always get it right. Yesterday’s science is today’s cheap joke, so you are going to sometimes get inconsistency. Factor in fiction and all these wonderful examples from Trek and it’s just pure fun.Yes, the last thing I want from science is consistency...
The Bad Science of Voyager
- Thread starter TommyR01D
- Start date
It was a bit perplexing that the aliens tried to virtually invade Voyager and kill the crew within the dream, when they could have just left them asleep for a few weeks so that they starved to death without ever realising what was going on.
I am sorry but that's not true. Much more often than not Yesterday's science, is today's science with a correction, minimal at that. Einstein's theory didn't turn Newton's into a joke. In fact 99.9 percent of the time we use Newton's numbers without even bothering with Einstein's equations. Sure we have some remarkable examples where Einstein is useful like the GPS that without Einstein's both Special and General Relativities would be terribly inaccurate and we have the scanning tunneling microscope (STM) that is a direct application of the uncertainty principle but outside of these examples that are rather extreme the old theory works just fine.
Without doing the research, I ask...
Why do the Nacelles fold up? Any scientific reason?
Why do the Nacelles fold up? Any scientific reason?
It has to do with hypocosmodynamics... the science of moving through subspace...
Probably Voyager's computer was about to materialise a dunce's cap on Janeway's head and make fun of her because of her ignorance, but it was aware that Kathryn would then reprogram it, with an axe if necessary. So it gave her the answer she wanted to hear (who was going to check its veracity anyway?), being aware of the alien in sickbay.
Last edited:
It actually is impossible, just from the math. Unless they are using cloning as well.
today's "science" will likely have our grandchildren rolling on the floor with laughter.
to avoid damaging subspace, real question is why do they bother to lower them?
if twins and triplets are the norm, and singles the rare exception, then what would be the difficulty.
Last edited:
Yeah, like Einstein's general theory of relativity (1915) has today's kids...
well, maybe not.
They would indeed need to be having litters, or even spawning in the hundreds. Instead Elogium implies there would only be one baby, and Before and After doesn't contradict that.
We then have the preposterous mating rituals, in which a parental figure must massage the female's feet until her tongue swells up, and then the couple have to remain bonded together for six days (equivalent to two months for a human, given the difference in lifespan). Also, the process has to be initiated within fifty hours of the appearance Ipasaphor (that mustard on Kes's hands) or that's your chance at motherhood gone.
Just to hammer home the insanity of this, the mitral sac (equivalent to the uterus) grows on the upper back, and childbirth is apparently done standing up, so without an attentive assistant there's a reasonable chance that the baby will just be dropped onto the ground from five feet up.
We then have the preposterous mating rituals, in which a parental figure must massage the female's feet until her tongue swells up, and then the couple have to remain bonded together for six days (equivalent to two months for a human, given the difference in lifespan). Also, the process has to be initiated within fifty hours of the appearance Ipasaphor (that mustard on Kes's hands) or that's your chance at motherhood gone.
Just to hammer home the insanity of this, the mitral sac (equivalent to the uterus) grows on the upper back, and childbirth is apparently done standing up, so without an attentive assistant there's a reasonable chance that the baby will just be dropped onto the ground from five feet up.
Not unknown among some mammals, horses for example. Or the mother could just reach around and grab the kid.
Yeah, not very practical...
This part makes very little sense to me. Why once?
You know as well as I do they made it up on the spot to up the stakes and never thought twice about the wider repercussions.
Similar threads
